Mahmood Mamdani on Democracy Now the other day, discussing "The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency" - which I discussed a couple months ago.
Then follows the politics around genocide. And the politics around genocide is, when is the slaughter of civilians a genocide or not? Which particular slaughter is going to be named genocide, and which one is not going to be named genocide? So if you look at the last ten years and take some examples of mass slaughter -- for example, the mass slaughter in Iraq, which is -- in terms of numbers, at least -- no less than what is going on in Sudan; or the mass slaughter in Congo, which, in terms of numbers, is probably ten times what happened, what has been happening in Darfur. But none of these have been named as genocide. Only the slaughter in Darfur has been named as genocide. So there is obviously a politics around this naming, and that's the politics that I was interested in.
What has the G8 accomplished in the last 2 years? As predicted, Death for Millions, not "Victory for Millions". 33rd verse, same as the first. Why G8 has failed the Afrikan continent:
So the reality is far from helping Africa the 2005 G8 summit failed to deliver on the promises made and as a result the African continent is even more exploited whilst the vast majority of its citizens live in inordinate poverty.
Relating to my earlier post, The Problem with Bill Gates' Philanthropy in Africa... comes Is Bill Gates Trying to Hijack Africa's Food Supply?:
Corporate foundations that have pledged millions believe that genetically altered crops will rescue Africa from endemic shortfalls in food production. Are they creating a 'green revolution' or hijacking the food supply?